arcium_decrypt_result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the decryption action. It implies no state modification (read operation), but does not disclose potential errors, required permissions, or edge cases (e.g., what if keys are invalid). It is adequate but lacks behavioral depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input action but does not mention output format, return value, or any post-conditions. For a decryption tool, this is functional but incomplete; the user would need to infer output from context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by tying the private key and nonce to the user's and result's context. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool decrypts an encrypted computation result using a private key and nonce. The verb 'Decrypt' is specific, and the resource 'encrypted computation result' is well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like encrypt, generate keypair, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no mention of context (e.g., after fetching a result), and no exclusions. The description merely states what it does, not when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.